Lange Commentary - Judges 3:1 - 3:4

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Judges 3:1 - 3:4


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Enumeration of the heathen nations left to prove Israel

Jdg_3:1-4

1Now these are the nations which the Lord [Jehovah] left [at rest], to prove Israel by them, (even as many of Israel as had not known [by experience] all the wars of Canaan; 2Only that the generations of the children [sons] of Israel might know to teach them 3war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof;) Namely, five lords [principalities] of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt [dwell] in mount Lebanon, from mount Baal-hermon unto the entering in of 4[lit. unto the coming i.e. the road to] Hamath. And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord [Jehovah], which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Jdg_3:2—Dr. Cassel renders this verse freely: “Only that to give experience to the generations of the sons of Israel, they might teach them war which they did not formerly learn to know.” He supplies a second ìִîַòַï before ììַîְּãָí (see the exposition below), and in a note (which we transfer from the foot of the page), remarks: “Jdg_3:2 contains two subordinate clauses dependent on the subject of the principal sentence in Jdg_3:1, which is ‘Jehovah.’ In the first of these clauses (each of which is introduced by ìְîַòַï ), the subject is ‘Israel’ (fully, ãֹּøåֹú áִּðֵéÎéùׂ× ); in the second, ‘the nations.’ The first expresses the result of the second; that which Israel experiences is, that the nations teach it war.” Keil (who follows Bertheau) explains as follows: “only ( øַ÷ , with no other view than) to know the subsequent generations ( ãֹּøåֹú , the generations after Joshua and his contemporaries) of the sons of Israel, that He (Jehovah) might teach them war, only those who had not learned to know them (the wars of Canaan).” But, 1, if ãֹּøåֹú were in the accus., the author could hardly have failed to remove all ambiguity by prefixing àֶúÎ to it. 2. An infin. of design with ìְ , following one with ìְîַòַï , without å to indicate coördination, can only be subordinate to the preceding. Thus in the English sentence: “We eat in order to live to work,” “to work,” would be at once interpreted as subordinate to “to live.” A second ìְîַòַï might indicate coördination even without the assistance of å , cf. in English: “We eat in order to live, in order to work;” where we feel at once that “to live” and “to work” are coördinate so far as their relation to the principal verb is concerned. Hence, Dr. Cassel inserts a second ìְîַòַï ; but this is an expedient too much like cutting the Gordian knot to be satisfactory. Bachmann, who in the main agrees with our author, avoids this by treating ìְìַîְּãָí as a gerundive adverbial phrase. As for ãַּòַú it is not indeed impossible that, remembering what he said in Jdg_2:10 ( ìֹà éָãְòåּ , etc.), and just now substantially repeated in Jdg_3:1 b, the writer of Judges uses it here absolutely, to indicate briefly the opposite of the condition there described, in which case Dr. Cassel’s rendering would be sufficiently justified. But since áְּðֵé éùׂ× ãֹּøåֹú (Jdg_3:2 a) clearly represents the àֵú ëָּìÎàְùֶׁø ìֹà of Jdg_3:1 b, it seems obvious that the ãַּòַú of Jdg_3:2 in like manner resumes the éָãְòåּ àֵú ëָּìÎîִìְçֲîåֹú ëְּðָòַï of Jdg_3:1. We may suppose, therefore, that the pronoun “them” is here, as frequently, omitted after ãַּòַú , and translate, freely, thus: “And these are the nations which Jehovah left to prove Israel by them—all that Israel which did not know all the wars of Canaan, in order that the after generations of Israel (they also) might know (understand and appreciate) them (i.e. those wars), in that he (i.e. Jehovah, or they, the nations) taught them war, (not war in general, however, but) only the wars which (or, such wars as) they did not formerly know.” The first øַ÷ , as Bachmann remarks, limits the design of Jehovah, the second the thing to be taught. As to the last clause of Jdg_3:2, if the accents be disregarded, the only difficulty in the way of the rendering here given is the plural suffix í ; but this probably arises from the fact that the writer’s mind at once recurs to the “wars of Canaan.” The ìְôָðִéí , of old, is used from the point of time occupied by the “after generations,” as was natural to a writer who lived so late as the period of kings, and not from that in which the äִðִéçַ of Jdg_3:1, and its design, took place. The masculine í to represent a fem. plur. is not very unfrequent, cf. 2Sa_20:3; 2Ki_18:13. Dr. Bachmann connects the last clause with ãּòַú , respects the accents (which join ìְôָðִéí with àֲùֶׁø , not with ìàֹ éְãָòåּí ), and renders: “that Israel might learn to know …. war, namely, only those (wars) which were formerly, they did not know them = only the former wars which they did not know.” The sense is not materially affected by this change.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg_3:1. All who had not experienced the wars of Canaan. These are they of whom it was said, Jdg_2:10, that they “knew not the works of the Lord.” This younger generation, after the death of Joshua and the elders, enjoyed the fruits of conquest, but did not estimate aright the greatness of the dangers endured by the fathers, and therefore did not sufficiently value the help of God. The horrors of war, to be known, must be experienced. As if the conquest of Canaan had been of easy achievement! It was no light thing to triumph over the warlike nations. Was not the tribe of Judah, although victorious, obliged nevertheless to abandon the valley to the iron chariots? But of that the rising generation no longer wished to know anything. They did not know what “a war with Canaan signified.”

Jdg_3:2. Only that to give experience to the generations of the sons of Israel they might teach them war, with which they did not before become acquainted. The construction of the sentence is difficult, and consequently has been frequently misunderstood (among others, by Bertheau). The book which the narrator is about to write, is a Book of Wars; and it is therefore incumbent upon him to state the moral causes in which these originated. God proves Israel for its own good. With this in view, “He left the nations in peace, to prove Israel by them.” How prove Israel? By depriving it of rest through them. They compel Israel to engage in conflict. In defeat the people learn to know the violence of Canaanitish oppression, and, when God sends them heroes, the preciousness of the boon of restored freedom. Only for this; the emphasis of the verse falls on only ( øַ÷ ), which is introduced twice. Between éִùְׂøָàֵì and ìְìַîְּãָí a ìְîַòַï is to be supplied. The Hebrew usus loquendi places both clauses ( ìְîַòַï ãַּòַú and ìְîַòַï ìְìַîְּãָí ), each beginning with ìְîַòַï alongside of each other without any connective, whereby one sets forth the ground of the other. God leaves the nations in peace, “in order that they might teach the Israelites what war with Canaan signified,—in order that those generations might know it who had not yet experienced it.” It is not for technical instruction in military science that He leaves the heathen nations in the land, but that Israel may know what it is to wage war, that without God it can do nothing against Canaan, and that, having in the deeds of contemporary heroes a present counterpart of the experience of their fathers, who beheld the mighty works which God wrought for Israel through Moses and Joshua, it may learn humility and submission to the law. This reason why God did not cause the Canaanites to be driven out, does not, however, contradict that given in Jdg_2:22. Israel can apostatize from God, only when it has forgotten Him. The consequence is servitude. In this distress, God sends them Judges. These triumph, in glorious wars, over victorious Canaan. Grateful Israel, being now able to conceive, in their living reality, the wonders by which God formerly raised it to the dignity of nationality, has learned to know the hand of its God. Cf. Jdg_3:4.

Jdg_3:3. Five principalities of the Philistines. Jos_13:2, seq., enumerates the nations which were to remain, with still more distinctness. There, however, the reason, given in our passage, why God let them remain, is not stated. The principalities of the Philistines must be treated of elsewhere. The Canaanites and the Zidonians are the inhabitants of the Phœnician coast. The importance of Zidon has already been pointed out in Jdg_1:31. The districts not under Zidonian supremacy, are referred to by the general term “Canaanite.” The Hivite, here mentioned as an inhabitant of Mount Lebanon, does not occur under that name in Jos_13:5. He is there spoken of under the terms, “land of the Giblites (Byblus, etc.) and all Lebanon;” here, a more general designation is employed. The name çִåִּé indicates and explains this in a manner highly interesting. The LXX. render çִåִּé by Åὐáῖïò , as for çַåָּä , the mother of all the living, they give Åὔá . The word çָåָä , çָéָä , to live, whence äַåָּä , includes the idea of “roundness, circularity of form,” So the ὠüí , ovum, egg, is round, and at the same time the source of life. Consequently, çַéָּä and çַéָּä came to signify battle-array or encampment (cf. 2Sa_23:11) and village (Num_32:41), from the circular form in which camps and villages were disposed. The people called Hivite is the people that resides in round villages. Down to the present day—marvelous tenacity of national custom!—the villages in Syria are so built that the conically-shaped houses form a circular street, inclosing an open space in the centre for the herds and flocks. Modern travellers have found this style of building still in use from the Orontes to the Euphrates (Ritter, xvii. 1698). It distinguished the Hivite from the other nations. And it is, in fact, found only beyond the boundary here indicated; on northern Lebanon, above Mount Hermon. This therefore also confirms the remarks made above (at Jdg_1:33), on the parallel passage, Jos_13:5, where we find the definition “from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon,” whereas here we read of a “mount Baal Hermon.” Baal Hermon, according to its signification, corresponds exactly with the present name Jebel esh-Sheikh, since on the one hand Sheikh may stand for Baal, while, on the other, Hermon derived its name from its peculiar form. çֶøְîåֹï is a dialectic equivalent of the Hebrew àַøְîåֹï . àֲøָí is the height, the highlands: àַøְîåֹï the prominent point, the commanding fortress. Hermon, as the southern foot of Anti-Libanus, is its loftiest peak. It towers grandly, like a giant (cf. Ritter, xvii. 151, 211), above all its surroundings,—like a silver-roofed fortress of God. This is not the only instance in which Hermon is apparently the name of a mountain. It is probable indeed that to the Greeks the Hermæan Promontory (̔ Åñìáßá ἄêñá , Polyb. I. xxxvi. 11; cf. Mannert, Geogr., x. ii. 512) suggested only some reference to Hermes. But the greater the difficulty of seeing why Hermes should give names to mountain peaks, the more readily do we recognize a çֶøְîåֹï , not only in this but also in the promontory of Lemnos, the Hermæan Rock (̔ Åñìáῖïí ëÝðáò ) mentioned by Greek poets (Æschyl. Agam., 283). It accords with this that Ptolemy specifies a Hermæan Promontory in Crete also. It is evident how appropriately Hermon, in its signification of Armon, “a fortress-like, towering eminence,” is used to denote a promontory. The Greek ἄêñá also has the twofold signification of fortress and promontory; and Mount Hermon itself may to a certain extent be considered to be both one and the other.

It is evident that when in Jos_13:5 the boundary of the hostile nations is defined as running from “Baal-gad under Mount Hermon,” and here as extending “from Baal Hermon” onward, the same sacred locality is meant in both passages, and that Baal Hermon is identified with Baal-gad. This is further confirmed by the following: The Talmud (Chulin, 40 a) speaks of the sinful worship which is rendered ìְðָãָà ãְçַø , the Goda of the mountain, i.e. as Raschi explains, the angel like unto Michael, who is placed over the mountains of the world. Moses ha-Cohen advances an equally ancient conception, current also among the Arabians, when he states (ap. Ibn Ezra, on Isa_65:11), that Baal-gad is the star Zedek, i.e. Zeus. For Zeus is in fact the Hellenic deity of all mountain-peaks, the Great Baal Hermon. Hence it was customary among the Hellenes also to prepare sacrificial tables in the service of Zeus; and with Isa_65:11 we may profitably compare Paus. ix. 40, where we learn that in Chæronea, where the sceptre of Zeus was venerated as a palladium, “a table with meat and pastry was daily” prepared. At the birth of a son to her maid, Leah says (Gen_30:11): áָּà ðָּã ; which the Chaldee translators already render by ðָּãָà èָáָà (Jerus. Targ.) and îַæָּìָà èָáָà (Jonath.). îַæָּìָä (Cf. 2Ki_23:5), means, star; îַæּì èåֹá is the good star that appears,—fortune, as the Septuaginta render ôý÷ç . Two planets, Jupiter and Venus, were ἀãáèïõñãïß (Plutarch, De Is. et Os., cap. xlviii.), bearers of what is good,—fortune-bringers. Hence, Gad, as “Fortune,” could be connected both with Astarte (cf. Movers, Phœn., i. 636), and with Baal (Jupiter). ðָּã is manifestly the same as the Persian çãà (cf. ðָּãַã and çָãַã , ðָּáַì and çָáַì , etc.), Ghoda, which signifies god and lord, quite in the sense of áַּòַì (cf. Vullers, Lex. Pers. Lat., i. 660). If there be any connection between this term and the Zendic Khadhâta, it is only that the latter was used to designate the constellations. In heathen views of life, fortune and good coincide. To enjoy the good things of life is to be fortunate. Áãáèὴ ôý÷ç is the Hellenic for happiness. The Syriac and Chaldee versions almost uniformly render the terms àֵùְׁøֵé and ìáêÜñéïò , blessed, which occur in the Old and New Testaments, by èåֹá , good (cf. my work Irene, Erf. 1855, p. 9). In ðָּã the ideas God and Fortune coëxist as yet unresolved; subsequently, especially in the Christian age, they were separated in the Germanic dialects as God and Good. For there is no doubt that in Gad (God), the good (fortunate) god and constellation, we find the oldest form, and for that reason a serviceable explanation, of the name God, which, like Elohim, disengaging itself from heathen conceptions, became the sacred name of the Absolute Spirit. At the same time it affords us the philological advantage of perceiving, what has often been contested (cf. Dieffenbach, Goth. Lex. ii. 416; Grimm. Myth. pp. 12, 1199, etc.), that God and Good actually belong together. Baal-gad was the God of Fortune, which was held to be the highest good.—The meaning of ìְáåֹà çֲîָú has been indicated above (p. 46).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[Compare the Homiletical Hints of the preceding section.—Keil: In the wars of Canaan under Joshua, Israel had learned and experienced that the power which subdued its enemies consisted not in the multitude and valor of its warriors but in the might of its God, the putting forth of which however depended upon Israel’s continued faithfulness towards its Possessor. …. Now, in order to impress them with this truth, on which the existence and prosperity of Israel, and the realization of the purpose for which they had been divinely called, depended; in other words, in order to show them by the practical lessons of experience that the People of Jehovah can fight and conquer only in the strength of their God, the Lord had suffered the Canaanites to be left in the land. Necessity teaches prayer. The distress into which Israel fell by means of the remaining Canaanites, was a divine discipline, by which the Lord would bring the faithless back to Himself, admonish them to follow his commands, and prepare them for the fulfillment of his covenant-engagements. Hence, the learning of war, i.e. the learning how the People of the Lord should fight against the enemies of God and his kingdom, was a means ordained by God of tempting or trying Israel, whether they would hearken to the commands of their God and walk in the ways of the Lord. When Israel learned so to war, it learned also to keep the divine commands. Both were necessary to the People of God. For as the realization by the people of the blessings promised in the covenant depended on their giving heed to the voice of the Lord, so also the conflict appointed for them was necessary, as well for their personal purification, as for the continued existence and growth of the kingdom of God on earth.—Bertheau: The historian cannot sufficiently insist on the fact that the remaining of some of the former inhabitants of the land, after the wars of Joshua, is not a punishment but only a trial; a trial designed to afford occasion of showing to the Israelites who lived after Joshua benefits similar to those bestowed on his contemporaries. And it is his firm conviction that these benefits, consisting chiefly of efficient aid and wonderful deliverances in wars against the remaining inhabitants, would assuredly have accrued to the people, if they had followed the commands of Jehovah, especially that on which such stress is laid in the Pentateuch, to make no league with the heathen, but to make war on them as long as a man of them remains.

Henry: It was the will of God that Israel should be inured to war,—1. Because their country was exceeding rich and fruitful, and abounded with dainties of all sorts, which if they were not sometimes made to know hardship, would be in danger of sinking them into the utmost degree of luxury and effeminacy,—a state as destructive to ‛ good as it is to everything great, and therefore to be carefully watched against by all God’s Israel. 2. Because their country lay very much in the midst of enemies, by whom they must expect to be insulted; for God’s heritage was as a speckled bird; the birds round about were against her. …. Israel was a figure of the church militant, that must fight its way to a triumphant state. The soldiers of Christ must endure hardness. Corruption is therefore left remaining in the hearts even of good Christians, that they may learn war, keep on the whole armor of God, and stand continually on their guard.

Wordsworth: “To teach them war.” So unbelief awakens faith, and teaches it war; it excites it to contend earnestly for the truth. The dissemination of false doctrines has led to clearer assertions of the truth. Heresies have produced the creeds. “There must be heresies,” says the Apostle, “that they who are approved among you may be made manifest” (1Co_11:19).—Tr.]

Footnotes:

[Jdg_3:2—Dr. Cassel renders this verse freely: “Only that to give experience to the generations of the sons of Israel, they might teach them war which they did not formerly learn to know.” He supplies a second ìִîַòַï before ììַîְּãָí (see the exposition below), and in a note (which we transfer from the foot of the page), remarks: “Jdg_3:2 contains two subordinate clauses dependent on the subject of the principal sentence in Jdg_3:1, which is ‘Jehovah.’ In the first of these clauses (each of which is introduced by ìְîַòַï ), the subject is ‘Israel’ (fully, ãֹּøåֹú áִּðֵéÎéùׂ× ); in the second, ‘the nations.’ The first expresses the result of the second; that which Israel experiences is, that the nations teach it war.” Keil (who follows Bertheau) explains as follows: “only ( øַ÷ , with no other view than) to know the subsequent generations ( ãֹּøåֹú , the generations after Joshua and his contemporaries) of the sons of Israel, that He (Jehovah) might teach them war, only those who had not learned to know them (the wars of Canaan).” But, 1, if ãֹּøåֹú were in the accus., the author could hardly have failed to remove all ambiguity by prefixing àֶúÎ to it. 2. An infin. of design with ìְ , following one with ìְîַòַï , without å to indicate coördination, can only be subordinate to the preceding. Thus in the English sentence: “We eat in order to live to work,” “to work,” would be at once interpreted as subordinate to “to live.” A second ìְîַòַï might indicate coördination even without the assistance of å , cf. in English: “We eat in order to live, in order to work;” where we feel at once that “to live” and “to work” are coördinate so far as their relation to the principal verb is concerned. Hence, Dr. Cassel inserts a second ìְîַòַï ; but this is an expedient too much like cutting the Gordian knot to be satisfactory. Bachmann, who in the main agrees with our author, avoids this by treating ìְìַîְּãָí as a gerundive adverbial phrase. As for ãַּòַú it is not indeed impossible that, remembering what he said in Jdg_2:10 ( ìֹà éָãְòåּ , etc.), and just now substantially repeated in Jdg_3:1 b, the writer of Judges uses it here absolutely, to indicate briefly the opposite of the condition there described, in which case Dr. Cassel’s rendering would be sufficiently justified. But since áְּðֵé éùׂ× ãֹּøåֹú (Jdg_3:2 a) clearly represents the àֵú ëָּìÎàְùֶׁø ìֹà of Jdg_3:1 b, it seems obvious that the ãַּòַú of Jdg_3:2 in like manner resumes the éָãְòåּ àֵú ëָּìÎîִìְçֲîåֹú ëְּðָòַï of Jdg_3:1. We may suppose, therefore, that the pronoun “them” is here, as frequently, omitted after ãַּòַú , and translate, freely, thus: “And these are the nations which Jehovah left to prove Israel by them—all that Israel which did not know all the wars of Canaan, in order that the after generations of Israel (they also) might know (understand and appreciate) them (i.e. those wars), in that he (i.e. Jehovah, or they, the nations) taught them war, (not war in general, however, but) only the wars which (or, such wars as) they did not formerly know.” The first øַ÷ , as Bachmann remarks, limits the design of Jehovah, the second the thing to be taught. As to the last clause of Jdg_3:2, if the accents be disregarded, the only difficulty in the way of the rendering here given is the plural suffix í ; but this probably arises from the fact that the writer’s mind at once recurs to the “wars of Canaan.” The ìְôָðִéí , of old, is used from the point of time occupied by the “after generations,” as was natural to a writer who lived so late as the period of kings, and not from that in which the äִðִéçַ of Jdg_3:1, and its design, took place. The masculine í to represent a fem. plur. is not very unfrequent, cf. 2Sa_20:3; 2Ki_18:13. Dr. Bachmann connects the last clause with ãּòַú , respects the accents (which join ìְôָðִéí with àֲùֶׁø , not with ìàֹ éְãָòåּí ), and renders: “that Israel might learn to know …. war, namely, only those (wars) which were formerly, they did not know them = only the former wars which they did not know.” The sense is not materially affected by this change.—Tr.]

Cf. Jos_4:24. [Compare the note under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.]

Cf. Preller, Gr. Mythol., i. 77. He is such as ἀêñáῖïò , ἐðÜêñéïò , etc. That ἀðåóÜíôéïò also has no other meaning, Preller shows elsewhere. Mountain temples, says Welcker (Mythologie, i. 170), were erected to other gods only exceptionally. As for the temple of Hermes on Mount Cellene (Paus. viii. 17, 1), it could perhaps be made probable that here also the name of the mountain suggested the worship of Hermes.

Movers (Phœn. ii. 2, 515) thinks that he can explain the name of the Numidian seaport Cirta from øֹàùׁ âָּã , which is doubtful. On the other hand, when the Etymolog Magnum, under ÃÜäåéñá , expresses the opinion that Gades in Spain was so named because “ ãÜäïí ðáῤ áí ̓ ôïῖòôὸ ἐê ìéêñῶí ᾠêïäïìçìÝíïí ,” there is evidently no reference to ÷ָèֹï , but to Gad in the sense of Fortune. For the stress is laid not on the small beginnings, but on the good for tune, which from a small city made it great. This on Movers, ii. 2, 621, not. 89 a.